Talk:Clay Aiken

Portions of this talk page have been archived. You may wish to look up the previous discussion, as some of it is on issues that have already been resolved.

Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12| Archive 13

Image Deleted Again

I would have sworn I added Fair Use rational to the image. I did with all the other ones. Where do you find the history for what happened? Nevermind, I found the log. [1] - Maria202 17:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Special:Log appears to be the place where one can search for it. I did some hunting, found this History log for Image:Aiken3.jpg, and it appears that was deleted for reason "I3", which seems to be (from Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Images/Media)

Improper license. Images licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "non-derivative use" or "used with permission" that were uploaded on or after 19 May 2005, and for which no assertion of fair use is provided. [1] This includes images licensed under a "Non-commercial Creative Commons License".[2] Such images uploaded before 19 May 2005 may also be speedily deleted if they are not used in any articles.

From the history, it looks like the fair use rationale wasn't added. -- ArglebargleIV 17:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw your change. -- ArglebargleIV 17:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That's ok. I couldn't find it in the history either. It was a screen shot. This gets tiresome. Thanks. - Maria202 17:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded a new image and this time there is fair use rational. Hope this one sticks. - Maria202 18:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Vocal ability

Until someone can come up with a third party source for this, I'm removing it from the article. If a citation can be found we can put it back in. We know he can sing but I've not seen an analysis of his voice other than by fans, and I don't think that counts.

He is registered as a tenor-alto., and also evinces graceful control in the falsetto range. Aiken has also demonstrated his ability to hold long notes with control, which was evidenced by his rendition of the Neil Sedaka classic Solitaire, which he performed as a contestant on season two and as a guest on season three of American Idol.

Maria202 18:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Ripa

• Nothing on the Kelly Ripa thing here yet? 24.124.93.95 04:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Shannon, 11/25/2006

I'm not saying Kelly Ripa didn't exacerbate the situation or to some extent provoke it. But Aiken, who she doesn't know well like she knows Regis, put his hand over her mouth, and if he hadn't done that, the followup wouldn't have happened either. So Aiken shares in the blame for this incident, and if it deserves mention on the Kelly Ripa page, it deserves mention here also. Once this tempest-in-a-teapot dies down, maybe this sort-of-news item could be removed from both pages. Wahkeenah 02:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

But if this sort of trivia is going to be here (rolleyes)- at least it should represent both sides of the issues. 69.19.14.30 03:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It did and it does. The fact that Aiken sent flowers shows that he knows he was in the wrong. Once this becomes a non-event, it could be deleted or trimmed in both pages. Wahkeenah 03:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Except that he sent flowers to Tyra Banks after he interviewed with her 2 weeks before. Just being a gentleman. 69.19.14.30 03:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen don't lay hands on a woman they don't know well. What part of Tyra Banks' body did he touch? Wahkeenah 04:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

He kissed her on the lips. They held hands (as did Kelly and Clay). She held his hand up to her cheek and caressed it. Etc. But that is not the point. The point is that the hand over mouth thing happens A LOT on the R&K show. Simon Cowell did exactly the same thing not long ago. He had also interacted with the audience. Not a word from Ripa. This entire topic is absurd. 69.19.14.29 06:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Clay goofed. Kelly ranted. Rosie butted in. The media had a field day. Clay spoofed. Regis plays cleanup guy. Really not a controversy, just a media picnic making much ado about nothing. As long as any mentions are balanced, I don't care either way. It's been reported that on WRAL TV this morning Clay said he and Kelly spoke and they are cool with each other. Regis said on Extra Kelly does that to him all the time. Do we really want Wikipedia to join in the tabloid journalism? - Maria202 15:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Your summary is better than the multi-paragraph summary in the Kelly (and now Clay) pages. Wahkeenah 15:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Clay's mistake was in getting too comfortable with Kelly. Kelly's mistake was not taking it up with him in private. - Maria202 16:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

YES! That is precisely the point that nearly everyone seems to have overlooked in this age of pushiness and assumed-familiarity. Everybody has made nice with each other now, so this should should go away soon. :) Wahkeenah 18:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be gone from both pages now. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and this is just fluff stuff. Michigan user 23:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

OK I deleted it from both pages. We will see who objects. Michigan user 23:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I object. - mixvio 17:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• The version you keep trying to force in here is blatantly POV and much more wordy than it needs to be. I'm welcome to suggestions IF THEY ARE POSTED HERE, but if you continue to vandalize the article by forcing POV spin on the story I'll be reporting you for violating the 3RR. - mixvio 17:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverted back to the version that was here before it was deleted. It is also the version that the folks on the Ripa page agreed on. It is a balanced view of what happened, and various reactions to it. Please get consensus here before you decide ALL BY YOURSELF that your version is more NPOV. I completely disagree with you. 69.19.14.15 19:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Deal with it. Reverted your vandalism. The people on the Ripa page aren't on the Clay Aiken page. - mixvio 19:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Deal with it yourself - reverted your vandalism. This is the version that the people on the CLAY AIKEN page had before it was deleted. It actually shows a side other that just the issues that Mixvio cares about. Your version is POV. You don't get to make a unilateral decision. This version is balanced. Of course the entire thing could be deleted and we would not have to have this issue at all. 69.19.14.15 19:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverted your vandalism again. The edit you're trying to force is larger than any other section in the controversy section. It's also twice the size of the edit I'm making. There's no consensus on this except what you want, and you can bugger off. Throwing a bunch of allegedlys around doesn't make it balanced. Stop reverting to vandalize the article or I'll have a moderator step in. - mixvio 19:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Please have a moderator step in because I am really sick of your bullying. 69.19.14.15 19:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The page is protected. You're the only bully here, but what's new. - mixvio 19:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I rather prefer the shorter version; there's no need to puff up the article with so much aside info. But that's just my opinion. You guys need to come to an agreement so the reverting can stop. Why does the anon feel all the extra info is needed when it can be so easily acessed by the given links? --DanielCD 19:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with a shorter version. Just do not leave it so completely POV. The only issue that NEEDS to be left in here is the hyposcrisy issue. That Ripa has done this many times herself, and that Simon Cowell did it to her recently with not a word from her. Feel free to leave out the Rosie part, or the germophobia part, or the flowers part. Just do NOT leave out the entire point of the incident. This was not a gay issue (at least until Rosie butted in), this was not a germophobia issue (at least not until Ripa had to come up with an excuse REAL quick), this was not a politeness issue (or Ripa would not be so quick to do it herself). This was all about Ripa not liking that Clay was getting the limelight. So she tried to upstage him. And she did not like it when he did not take it meekly, so she tried to take him down a peg or two in public. So feel free to shorten what you want. Just NOT the hypocrisy part. 69.19.14.44 01:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a repository for celebrities' various psychological shortcomings. :) I put all pertinent FACTUAL details into the story and I pointed out as unbiased as I can be what happened; for what it's worth I think Rosie O'Donnell's being stupid. But your assertion of "hypocracy" and jealousy is conjecture and not fact. Ergo it's petty and doesn't belong. - mixvio 01:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be a repository for silly tabloid topics like this either. So why is it here? The FACTUAL details include the fact that Ripa has done this many times. And that Regis has done it to her many times. And that Simon Cowell did it to her recently. The FACT is that many entertainment shows went on and on about the hypocrisy of Ripas comments - they said it, not me. And they said that her comments were "absurd". That is a fact. The hypocrisy paragraph was completely sourced. However you just want to present one side of the issue. Which makes this version totally POV and against Wikipedia Guidelines. Either delete the entire section, or make it balanced. 69.19.14.44 01:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It is balanced. However, if you want to add a reference about other people saying in the media that it's hypocritical, please give me your suggestion. But if you really think we need a breakdown of "On January 15 2006, Kelly Ripa put her hand over Justin Timberlake's mouth; On February 3 2006, Kelly Ripa put her hand over Paula Abdul's mouth; On July 20 2006, Kelly Ripa put her hand over Kanye West's mouth" etc, then that's just absurd. Please present me your suggestion, not more of your bitching. - mixvio 01:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

How about:

On November 17, 2006 Aiken was a stand-in guest host on Live with Regis and Kelly. During an interview Aiken was allegedly frustrated that he wasn't able to ask the questions on his cue cards, and attempted to ask a question but was interrupted by Ripa repeatedly. He then covered her mouth with his hand, which prompted Ripa to respond with "Oh, that's a no-no, I don't know where that hand's been, honey." [2] [3]

Some TV entertainment shows such as The Insider and Entertainment Tonight pointed out what they deemed as hypocrisy in Ripa's statements regarding the incident, since she has put her hand over Philbin's mouth several times on Live, and Simon Cowell did the same thing to her on an earlier show, with no comment from her. Ripa explained on a later show she was afraid of contracting germs during cold and flu season. Ripa may have believed the statements she made, but they were construed by others as "absurd". [4] Rosie O'Donnell on the November 21, 2006 episode of The View likened the outburst to a homophobic remark by Ripa, explaining "if that was a straight man, if that was a cute man, if that was a guy that she, you know, didn't question his sexuality, she would have said a different thing. I was offended by that. I guarantee if that was Mario Lopez she wouldn't have said the same thing." [5]

Aiken later made fun of the controversy on the 2006 American Music Awards that evening with Tori Spelling. [6]

69.19.14.44 02:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd only change this, otherwise I'm fine:

Ripa explained on a later show she was afraid of contracting germs during cold and flu season. Ripa may have believed the statements she made, but they were construed by others as "absurd". [7]

to

Ripa explained on a later show she was afraid of contracting germs during cold and flu season, but this explanation was construed by others as "absurd". [8]

- mixvio 02:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with that. Sounded kinda clunky anyway. 69.19.14.44 02:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• • My view of your proposed wording : (1) Not that I'm all too fond of admitting it, but I saw several of the entertainment shows' reports on the incident. I don't remember any of them using the word hypocrisy or describing Ripa's remarks as hypocritical. If you're going to say that the shows deemed it as hypocrisy, it's going to need a good reference. (2) "but they were construed by others" are weasel words. From the single reference given, the staff of TMZ.com said it, so say that they said it, not that it was "construed by others". -- ArglebargleIV 02:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• How is this, then?

On November 17, 2006 Aiken was a stand-in guest host on Live with Regis and Kelly. During an interview Aiken was allegedly frustrated that he wasn't able to ask the questions on his cue cards, and attempted to ask a question but was interrupted by Ripa repeatedly. He then covered her mouth with his hand, which prompted Ripa to respond with "Oh, that's a no-no, I don't know where that hand's been, honey." [9] [10]

Some TV entertainment shows such as The Insider and Entertainment Tonight pointed out that she has put her hand over Philbin's mouth several times on Live, and Simon Cowell did the same thing to her on an earlier show, with no comment from her. Ripa explained on a later show she was afraid of contracting germs during cold and flu season, but this explanation was construed by TMZ.com as "absurd". [11] Rosie O'Donnell on the November 21, 2006 episode of The View likened the outburst to a homophobic remark by Ripa, explaining "if that was a straight man, if that was a cute man, if that was a guy that she, you know, didn't question his sexuality, she would have said a different thing. I was offended by that. I guarantee if that was Mario Lopez she wouldn't have said the same thing." [12]

Aiken later made fun of the controversy on the 2006 American Music Awards that evening with Tori Spelling. [13]

- mixvio 02:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That looks OK to me. Need a comma after "Rosie O'Donnell". 69.19.14.44 02:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's added. - mixvio 02:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

We need to fix the refs. They got lost in the editing. 69.19.14.44 03:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think they're okay now; Wikipedia is being a little weird today. - mixvio 03:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Responding to the comment "The people on the Ripa page aren't on the Clay Aiken page," for my part, I have monitored the Ripa, O'Donnell, and Aiken pages. I haven't commented or edited further because the issue seemed to have died down. If there is an improvement on one page which is related to another page, the ethical thing to do is to look at the other page and improve it accordingly. If you know that one page has improved and you don't feel obligated to edit the other one, it is a blatent willingness and bias to ensure one article stays "clean" and another does not. Tinlinkin 13:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Another justification for why the section should have been smaller (and also not lifed word-for-word from the Kelly Ripa page) is that Clay Aiken only had more of a tangential connection to the incident than Ripa. It was Ripa's reaction that generated attention, not Aiken's action. Anyway, at Talk:Kelly Ripa, I propose that the incident should be deleted. Discussion would be held better there. Tinlinkin 14:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Aiken is the prime instigator. He had no business putting his hand on her mouth. Without that, none of the rest of it happens. However, everyone has made nice by now, so it would be fair to trim it from all 3 pages. Wahkeenah 00:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Just because the story is "over" doesn't mean it should be deleted. It generated a lot of media coverage. I don't think it should be deleted from either page particularly. - mixvio 00:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I mis-stated myself. "Trimmed", as in reduced in verbiage, not necessarily deleted. And it could easily be exactly the same verbiage on all 3 pages, which would be boring but consistent. Wahkeenah 00:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried hard to make the version here now the shortest it can get while still summarizing the story. :p I'm welcome to ideas, otherwise I'd suggest that this be the one copied around; but admittedly I don't really care as long as it's NPOV and documented. - mixvio 01:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that I have seen this story, I am convinced that this incident is memorable. Petty in importance but memorable. Therefore I agree with Wahkeenah that the passages should be trimmed to be concise, and perhaps the version in this article now is sufficient. But the verbiage should not be exactly the same on all 3 pages as a matter of editorial style, and I am not going to copy-and-paste what's in this article into Kelly Ripa, nor suggest that that should be done. I compliment the editors who maintain the neutal POV surrounding all of this. Tinlinkin 12:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the entire episode revolves around Aiken it's only fair to add his comments, which I've done. - Maria202 15:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the entire incident from both pages per conversation on Ripa page. It is tabloid news, and old at that. Michigan user 14:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to delete all mention of the incident, as if it never happened. Please shorten it instead. -Will Beback · † · 00:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've restored it but trimmed it to a few sentences. -Will Beback · † · 00:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be deleted either, but the reduction makes it sound even more irrelevant. :) But I don't care, this shit gives me a headache. - mixvio 01:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Tours section?

Does it really need to exist? Take Madonna for example: many tours... but her article doesn't have a long list of each and every tour, who she toured with, dates and so on. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan's guide to every tour. I can understand mentions of each tour in the regular parts of the article... not an entire section just listing tours. And in case someone asks: no, a list article isn't needed in this case either. RobJ1981 02:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are tours less encyclopedic than Albums? They take more work, last longer, and generate more revenue. Many tours are famous and well known. "the Warped tour", The Stripped tour, etc. I don't see why they are not encyclopedic, just because not all articles have that information gathered. Michigan user 23:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Some information on them can be listed, but the list setup is just clutter. Look at the Madonna article for example. There is no tours section, but the article does talk about tours. Granted: Madonna has tours listed in seperate articles, but in my opinion...that route doesn't need to apply for Clay just yet. I think it's just a matter of talking about the tours, instead of a cluttered lists of bullet points. RobJ1981 20:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree about it looking cluttered. I think that trying to put the information into the paragraphs will clutter up the paragraphs. I am curious as to why you came into this article out of nowhere and added something called a "laundry tag" with no explanations. Is there some sort of Wikipedia guideline we're not aware of or is this just your opinion? As for other articles check out Bon Jovi, which also has a tour section. If we were writing about someone with a 25+ year career, such as Madonna, I'd agree it would be a bit much to list every tour, but were writing about someone with a 3 year career where, at this point in time, touring has been a major part of that career. - Maria202 15:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've decided to take a shot at rewriting the tours section as a series of descriptive paragraphs rather than in list form. It needs references, but I think they can be found. Please see below. -- ArglebargleIV 17:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Your revision looks ok. But why? It was less cluttered as a list. I think RobJ1981 was just imposing his aesthetic preference on us. There is no guideline that indicates that the paragraph format is better. 69.19.14.28 18:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure which format I like better, but I'd thought I'd throw it out for discussion. -- ArglebargleIV 20:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think for now we should stay with the list. One more tour and perhaps we can use a shortened list combined with a few paragraphs giving more detailed information. If touring continues to be a major part of his career we can consider using a second page and moving the information there. I've seen this done with other artists. - Maria202 15:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed new tours section

Aiken's first national tour was the 2003 American Idols Live! tour, a two month, 40 city arena tour starring Aiken and the other American Idol 2 finalists.

In 2004, Aiken toured on three separate occasions. From February through April, he toured with Kelly Clarkson on the Independent tour, the first tour apart from Idol for both Aiken and Clarkson. The opening act was The Beu Sisters; then each performed half of the concert, alternating between the first and second halves, and closed the concert with a duet of Journey's "Open Arms".

Aiken's first solo tour followed from July through September of 2004, hitting 50 cities. Since the tour did not have an official name, fans dubbed it the "Not A Tour" tour. Disney sponsored the tour as part of their promotional activities for the DVD release of Aladdin, marking their first tour sponsorship. During each concert, a preview video was shown of Aiken's performance of "Proud of Your Boy" (included on the Aladdin DVD), and both the DisneyHand and Bubel-Aiken Foundation charities were featured.

Aiken closed out 2004 with his first holiday concert series, the 28-city "Joyful Noise" tour, sponsored by Ronald McDonald House Charities. Each concert featured a 30 piece orchestra as well as both adult and children's choirs from each host city.

During the summer of 2005, Aiken's Jukebox Tour hit 26 cities in the eastern US as well as Toronto. Each concert was a 2 1/2 hour show including covers of music from each decade from the 50's to the 2000's, as well as current and future releases planned by Aiken. Continuing a trend from previous tours, each of his three backup singers were featured in soloes and spotlight segments.

Aiken's second holiday tour, the Joyful Noise 2005 Tour, was a departure from the previous year's holiday tour. After an opening performance by pop-classical pianist William Joseph, instead of a traditional concert, each show was a series of vignettes threading throughout the musical performances. In each city, a local supporting cast was recruited to supplement the traveling actors, singers, and dancers.

Aiken only toured once during 2006, the Holiday Symphony Tour, an 18-city December tour mostly throughout the eastern U.S., performing with local symphony orchestras.

Page protection

I protected the page since there seems to be a lot of reverting going on. Please try to work out your differences so the protection can be removed. --DanielCD 19:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Protection has been removed. --DanielCD 13:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Fansites allowed?

I thought fansites and MySpace pages weren't supposed to be linked as per WP:EL?Aleta 04:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The MySpace page is an official site. It's my understanding that one fan site per article is ok, and the one listed is a directory of all the sites. The other listed site is a newsletter, not a fan site. - Maria202 18:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Section Headings

Singling out one topic for emphasis in the article is completely against the pages and pages of discussion that we had on how to present the topic of the media questioning Clays sexuality, without making it stand out like a beacon to the casual reader. The way the topic was presented in the consensus version - and then when it was repackaged in the controversy section - it was mentioned, and sourced, but not made to stand out any more than any other topic, since according to Clay he is not gay and this borders on libel, and needs to be handled delicately.

Plus in no solution would anyone ever say that you can be "accused" of being gay. Being gay is not a crime. Do you want the gay activitsts all up in arms against Wikipedia. Not a single source has ever used such verbiage. Sheesh.

Please read the pages and pages of archives on this discussion. Do not change the article relating to anything surrounding this topic without consensus from all the editors involved. 66.82.9.83 11:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• 66.82.9.83 is correct. Archived discussions surrounding this issue took place and a consensus was reached. Edit waring and creating controversy where none should exist is disruptive. I've filed a notice on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and placed a 3RR warning on Hoponpop69's talk page. This needs to stop. - Maria202 13:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What exactly was the consensus? It wasn't clear from the archived talk - the consensus was ignore that there is any speculation? I'd say the speculation itself has been widespread enough to be relevant. JakiChan 07:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It was there for a long time. Then JP asked for his bio to be deleted because it contained the fact that he had publically recanted. He unrecanted and was angry that his bio still stated that he had recanted his story. So we put the article up for deletion, and it was almost unanimous for deletion. Then some folks who were involved in that discussion came over here and deleted all reference. Check the history--it's easy to follow. Meanwhile, BLP decisions are getting more and more clear. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid. So it'll stay as it is now. -Jmh123 15:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

2006 Holiday Tour Corrections Needed

This statement at the end of the second to last paragraph in the 2006: A Thousand Different Ways section needs corrections -

Aiken will take a break from album promotion in December to appear with various local symphony orchestras in their Christmas shows as a replacement for LeAnn Rimes. Album promotion is set to resume with a tour beginning early in 2007.

First, there were only two concerts of the 2006 Christmas tour for which it was publicly confirmed that Clay replaced LeAnn Rimes. There were more news reports (4) of Wynonna Judd replacing Rimes, indicating that Clay's 18-date holiday tour was likely only prompted by the possibility of replacing Rimes for a few dates.

Second, the 2006 tour would be more accurately described similarly to the 2004 tour as featuring a local orchestra rather than as an appearance with local symphony orchestras. As with the 2004 tour, only a minority of the dates were sponsored by local symphony orchestras and not all the shows were supported by symphony orchestras. For most shows, the orchestra was hired to provide an opening set and support Clay and at least two of the hired orchestras were big band, not symphony, orchestras.

Third, I don't think it is accurate to say the holiday tour was a break from album promotion. Clay's involvement in promoting the album may have ended before the holiday tour, as he's done little himself to promote the album since November.

Fourth, although Clay mentioned the possibility of a tour beginning in mid-February, that did not happen. In recent interviews, he's mentioned a possible tour in the summer '07, but nothing is definite at this point. If the tour does occur, it would be arguable whether or not that tour was promoting ATDW. So, for the sake of being strictly accurate, I think it would be best to not characterize such a tour as part of the album promotion.

I suggest the following revisions to the text:

Clive Davis is credited with the cover concept. Promotion for the album has been focused on daytime and late night television appearances. Aiken will take a break from album promotion in December to appear with various local symphony orchestras in their Christmas shows as a replacement for LeAnn Rimes. Album promotion is set to resume with a tour beginning early in 2007.

Aiken's fourth album, All is Well (an EP of four Christmas songs), was released exclusively to Walmart on November 28, 2006.[11]

revised to:

Clive Davis was credited with the cover concept. Promotion for the album was focused on daytime and late night television appearances.

Aiken's fourth album, All is Well (an EP of four Christmas songs), was released exclusively to Walmart on November 28, 2006.[11]

In December 2006, Aiken mounted his third Christmas tour, comprising performances in 18 Midwest and East Coast cities. The tour opened in Waukegan, Illinois on December 1 and ended in Greensboro, North Carolina on December 23. Aiken was supported by local orchestras, which also opened the concerts with a program of seasonal music.

Also revise:

2006: Holiday Symphony Tour

-18-city tour of cities mostly in the eastern U.S. (December 2006)

-Performing with local symphony orchestras.

to:

2006: Holiday Tour

-18-city tour of cities mostly in the eastern U.S. (December 2006)

-Performed with local orchestras, which also opened the concerts with a program of seasonal music

I would normally make these minor revisions to an entry myself, but defer to the usual editors in this case.--Samtha25 21:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Personally, I think your changes would be a vast improvement. Looks good to me! -- ArglebargleIV 23:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Looks fine to me too. Maria202 03:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's been 3 days and no one else commented so I went ahead and made the suggested changes. - Maria202 17:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion

I have no idea why you say that nowhere in the reference does it say "that". I provided a direct quote. It does say that. 69.19.14.42 01:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the direct quote you quoted in your edit summary :

"It is our goal to create an environment for children where INCLUSION is embraced"

This is the sentence from the article :

"His public philosophy, geared towards inclusion and service to others, is expressed in primarily secular terms."

Those two are not even close to being the same. The quote from the Bubel-Aiken Foundation talks about the goal of the BAF. The sentence from the article purports to describe Aiken's personal philosophy. The BAF quote doesn't mention secularism, and just because the BAF site doesn't mention non-secular activities certainly doesn't mean that Aiken's public philosophy is constrained by that lack of mention.

Something needs to be found that actually talks about Aiken's public philosophy, not the principles behind the BAF.

The sentence from the article is true, in my opinion, but my opinion doesn't count for beans, what matters is references and verifiability, especially when it is a direct comment on someone's personal views, and your reference doesn't support the statement. However, I'm not going to get into a 3RR reversion war anytime soon.

As a personal note : This is a content dispute, I do NOT appreciate being lumped in with the vandals.

Comments, everyone? -- ArglebargleIV 02:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Learning to Sing - Chapter 18, pg 227/228 discussing his faith and philosophy. Paraphrasing, if you ask him about his faith he will answer your questions but says "It's not my job to judge someone; it's not my job to mandate what someone else thinks." He also says that no child is going to have a spiritual crisis on his watch. Your not going to find any secular references regarding his charity because none exist. It's non-secular. Your asking to prove a negative. - Maria202 02:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

So, why don't we just report what he said, then, instead of trying to interpret it? -- ArglebargleIV 02:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the vandalism thing. I did not mean that you were doing the vandalism - there were just all those other edits in between. However, I disagree with you about the edit. The BAF is his public philosophy - it certainly is not private. It was wholely his. No one else put in any input. No person makes a statement that "this, and only this, is going to be my public philosophy". And I have never seen Rolling Stone say that it is a non-religious site, but it is still a non-religious site. The point is that Clay has talked about his religion publically, but his promoting of the concept of inclusion is expressed without religious connections. 69.19.14.42 03:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I added a second reference. - Maria202 04:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Retraction

As much as I'd like to see this as part of the article we can't use it. Blogs are not valid as citations and Paulus deleted all of his retraction/confession. If he talks to a valid media publication, or if he blogs again and the media picks it up then we can use it. As it stands now, only those who actually saw what he wrote would know about this. - Maria202 15:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The retraction is still there:

At 3/02/2007 3:28 AM, John Paulus said...

I have admitted that this was all a lie and that Clay and I never had sex. What's the problem. Time to move on. Clay has been a victim of a really evil scheme and I know that he is grateful for having such devoted fans who always believed in him. It's over Perc. the Claymates and Clay have both won. I hope they will forgive me for playing along with this ruse as Clay has.

There are also entries that explain the his bills were paid for a year in exchange for doing this, and that "Rick" paid him (I assume that is Rick Campbell, aka Groucho), etc.

And it was already argued on the JP article that if the blog BELONGS to the person in question - then it is valid, because it is their words. So that is different from a blog entry ABOUT someone.

I say, put it back in.

69.19.14.44 15:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

He must have put the blog where he commented back up because after he first said it he deleted it. What's to stop him from deleting it again and making us look like idiots? Maybe we can wait a few days and see what happens. I don't want another huge fight over this and I don't trust the guy not to change his story again. What do the other editors have to say? - Maria202 15:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing here that can't wait a few days to see what settles down. -- ArglebargleIV 16:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a warning. Having failed in his efforts to edit his own Wikipedia entry to suit himself, JP has blogged asking his minions to come over to Wikipedia and insert his perspective into the Aiken entry. I'm not sure if he actually has any minions anymore, but we can apply for protection if necessary. Also, the JP entry has been nominated for deletion, if anyone wants to vote: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Paulus_(2nd_nomination). See also, Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions.-Jmh123 04:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The John Paulus entry was deleted Saturday evening. Some people involved in that discussion came over and deleted beaucoup stuff here. Fine with me. I left a note on their talk pages asking for support if there's any disagreement about that. -Jmh123 16:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Photos

Someone from a fan board is saying that she took the photo being used here. Does anyone know the source of the photo personally? It's registered to a Flickr account. Thanks. -Jmh123 16:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why your questioning the photo but I do personally know who owns the photo and gave permission for it to be used here. The required permission is on file with OTRS at Wikimedia Commons. - Maria202 19:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

We've already discussed this, but just for the record, I questioned it because someone I know contacted me and claimed that she took the photo and presented me with a link to a photobucket album with that photo and many others taken at the same concert from the same location and angle. To bypass this issue, as we've also discussed, I've obtained permission to use photos from another fan. I've uploaded those photos, made sure they were properly licensed, and added them to the article. There's one more if you'd like to use it, here. I hope you'll also add the "changing looks" links/text we talked about. -Jmh123 02:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Done - Maria202 19:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

American Idol

It makes no sense to me why four seasons later the AI section needs to be "fleshed out" with trivia from a few episodes when a summarized version is more encyclopedic and shorter. The article was already getting too long and needed to be shortened. Rather than waste time trying to clean up the changes it was easier to restore the eariler summarized section. - Maria202 14:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! -Jmh123 03:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagreed, particularly since some of the changes lost were my own. A full discussion of Aiken's AI experience, for which he remains best known, is more relevant than much of the fluff and filler that follows. This article is likely a lost cause for public editing and needs full protection, since anything that is not fully favorable to Aiken is invariably removed. 72.73.214.14 02:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You have a strange notion of relevance. Aiken's AI season was four years ago. Since then we've seen three successful albums, two singles, six tours, a UNICEF Ambassadorship, and the Bubel-Aiken Foundation: this is not fluff and filler. I agree with Maria that trimming, not adding is needed--certainly less American Idol would be better than more. -Jmh123 21:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that an article about Clay Aiken that devotes approximately three times more space to his makeovers and Christmas albums throughout the past three years than his American Idol stint is worthy of an encyclopedia? Um, gotcha, thanks. Glad you're here to set me straight. Seriously, we agree this article needs a major trimming. But the most significant parts of Aiken's career from an objective standpoint are his Idol stint, his post-Idol musical career, and his extensive charitable work. I'd say each deserve about 1/3rd of the main body of the article. What we have here is essentially a shrine, downplaying the part of Aiken's career for which most Wikipedia readers know him best and would seek information about, and concentrating on fluff and filler (which is what it is, whether you care to call it that or not) that only his most devoted fans could possibly care about. The first step in getting this article under control is to protect it, then to have a recognized music editor rewrite it from a NPOV standpoint, and finally to keep it semi-protected and carefully monitored to prevent it from deteriorating into this sorry state again. 72.73.214.14 02:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Goodness gracious, take a look around and get to know Wikipedia a bit. Most of Wikipedia is in a sorry state. Writing by committee doesn't lend itself to good writing. No one is going to protect a page for the reasons you suggest, no recognized music editor works here or would (cause they expect to be paid), and no one is going to semi-protect a page about a pop star forever. -Jmh123 02:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As for the "Christmas albums," comment, Christmas has formed a major part of Aiken's post-Idol career. He's released an album and an EP, had a Christmas special on NBC as well as hosting the AI Christmas special; he's had three Christmas tours with another to come this year; and there's a Christmas Day skating special to come this year. There have been a number of televised performances of Christmas music (3 or 4 in 2006 alone). A Christmas song tops his iTunes sales list, and about half of his radio chart hits are Christmas songs. What we need is a different structure, a reorganization, but not more about his American Idol season. I don't agree with your assumption about what "most Wikipedia readers know...best and would seek information about." If they already know something they won't be seeking information about it. -Jmh123 05:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh my. He was a contestant on a show, had a "makeover", came in second and there was a voting controversy. Not many care about anything else show related other than he's the best selling and most successful runner up to date. All that is covered. Everything else he's done happened after the show ended. From what I've been told, the show never even mentioned his name this past season except for one quick mention in the Clive Davis speech on the last show. This article is a biography about Clay Aiken, not an American Idol show episode synopsis. AI has their own articles, but you already are aware of that. Maria202 04:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Revised biography

We've been talking for some time about revising the Aiken biography, which, due to being written by committee over several years' time, wasn't written very well and lacked a cohesive structure. Maria202 and I decided the time had come, and we worked hard for a couple of days, surprising ourselves at how quickly it went. We established a list of main categories to replace the year-by-year approach and integrated some of the material from other categories into these, or made them sub-categories under the main list. We rewrote the lead following recommendations on featured articles, and rewrote some sections that sorely needed it. We followed BLP guidelines carefully, and also followed general recommendations regarding the writing of biographies. Maria did a lot of research into the way other biographies are written as well.

Some of the older material still does not have citations, but we felt that it was important to maintain the narrative flow. The American Idol section is, though not cited, verifiable through the program itself, as are many of the references to television appearances. Any help filling in citations and/or correcting facts, especially regarding the "early years", would be especially appreciated. -Jmh123 02:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I added a note to standardize the citations to the TO DO list at the top. Maria202 02:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I shouldn't have used the new style for the few I added yesterday--I wasn't thinking, just playing with the forms. -Jmh123 02:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

A fresh pair of eyes. Cool! Thanks ArglebargleIV. Maria202 03:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice job on the rewrite! Kudos! -- ArglebargleIV 03:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It's nice to see you working on the page, ArglebargleIV. Thanks for finding the typos and adding Wikilinks. Your input is appreciated! Here's where we worked on the rewrite if you're interested in the process. It went so fast and easily, and we were so pleased with the results, that we decided to boldly make the change now. When I look at the discussion, it's surprisingly brief. A lot of communication happened during the actual editing process, by way of italicized notes, tentative strikes, and edit comments. -Jmh123 03:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Standardize Citations

I copied over the guideline from WP:WIAFA to the TO DO list just to save us searching them out time and so we're all on the same page. Maria202 14:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any recommended forms there, such as format of dates and so forth. Feeling dumb here. Where should I be looking? -Jmh123 15:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see any either. I do like the yy-mm-dd format for the retrieved dates. Also, we should be consistant with using either 'retrieved' or 'accessed' and not mix them up. We should probably decide whether or not to use Wikilinks in the references too. To me, using them in some and not others looks hodge podge with the mixture of blue and black text. I'd prefer not using them. Also, some have the entire reference in blue, others blue and black. Take a look at the Elvis Presley references. They are working on standardizing those. Scratch that, not a good example right now. - Maria202 16:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the way the citeweb forms turn out: See #41 and 42. Is it possible to standardize to this without necessarily using the forms? When I look at the ones I did last night using the old way, they look completely different. GRR. -Jmh123 16:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Wikilinks from the dates of those two citewebs--looks good to me. OK by me to leave the Wikilinks out. -Jmh123 16:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you use the form? Maria202 16:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't get the author's name into the form so gave up on that idea (or I should say, it makes the author's name come up first no matter what, and that wouldn't work for us). How about this as a template: <ref>[http://www.playbill.com/news/article/109038.html "Casting Announced for Idol: The Musical"] by Andrew Gans, ''Playbill'' (06/22/07). Retrieved June 22, 2007.</ref> You can see the results in notes 65 and 66. It mimics the citeweb form, but is easier to implement because most of our notes are done similarly to this. The Playbill is in ital in the code--not coming through--but it works in the note. -Jmh123 16:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"Idol: The Musical" by Andrew Gans, Playbill (06/18/07). Retrieved June 21, 2007.

I can live with that. Besides, I like using the old way since I finally got the hang of it. Maria202 17:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried the lead and the first paragraph, and it went pretty fast. Mostly just changing the last ] location and reformatting the dates, capitalizing the R, adding or removing periods, stuff like that. We should divide it up again I think, so we're not duplicating each other's efforts. How about I take the first half, through the end of Learning to Sing? -Jmh123 17:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Learning to Sing is already done. I'll pick up from there down. Maria202 17:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm finished. I'm going to start at the last section. My part was too easy. -Jmh123 18:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You and I were doing the same section and you wiped out all my changes. :) I need a break anyway. Maria202 19:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm so sorry. What an idiot I am. I thought you were doing the Activism section because of the edit notes. I noticed that we aren't doing exactly the same thing, in terms of commas, periods, and so forth. -Jmh123 19:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I did activism to make up for my messing you up. I was working on it before and stopped, because I realized I'd finished and thought I was then working where you were working, but I hadn't closed the window. Again, sorry. -Jmh123 19:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it - I laughed cause I needed a break. Maybe not but it still looks much much better. There were a couple that used the "cite web" that I left alone. And there's one that uses an archive url that I didn't touch. Maria202 19:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there was that much difference, cause I was looking at Makeovers and you hadn't done that section, so I just did it. I think we're done. And yeah, time for a break is right. Whew. -Jmh123 19:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

A little pruning

I tried to shorten the entry a bit by removing sentences here and there. Please feel free to restore any that you want, or ask me to restore them. -Jmh123 05:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd actually cut the American Idol Season 2 section even more, but in the back of my head was the person who wanted to add more awhile back. If you see things in that section that you think could go, feel free. -Jmh123 05:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the whole article could use a bit of trimming to shorten it some and get it closer to the lower recommended length. I took out a couple of sentences in the AI section and did some rewording. Maria202 12:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Demos

I'd love to get the exact dates and story of the demo recordings. Any clue who would know, and how to reference? -Jmh123 18:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Added. I googled Osceola and got only that he did some recording there for post Idol albums, which I already knew. Message board post from dardar, 6/1/05: "The demo recordings were done at Osceola Studios in Raleigh, and 2000 copies were made at American Media International, AMI, in Burlington, N.C., we learned when we bought the original demo albums "Look What Love Has Done" and "Redefined" in the spring of 2003." If she could source this to print, she probably would have. -Jmh123 18:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Wish I did. I only added the mention I did because I found a reference and a lot of people think AI was the beginning. Maybe some of the old AI interviews from season 2 if they are still on line or maybe the WRAL archives. It may be a case of only those who knew him knew about it. If I can find it, I'll check the UNCC alumni magazine that did a feature story on him. I remember reading something about how to tell if it was an original demo or a counterfeit but don't remember where. Maria202 18:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If we could find anyone with scans of the originals, would those be legit sources and legal photos? And which birthday was it? 18, 19, 20?? -Jmh123 18:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I left which birthday out because I've read both 18th and 20th. Maybe you could find someone with all three and have them take a photo. That could be be put on flickr with a commons license and used in the article. Maria202 19:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I found this on the first two. http://www.epinions.com/content_3472007300 "Redefined" is also on the last fm site. Maria202 19:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I already added the last fm link to Redefined. E-opinions is basically a user-added info site--probably not a reliable source. I'll ask at some fanboards to see if anyone will provide the scans.

Ripa/Aiken/O'Donnell matter

This seems to be a never ending battle. If at all, the matter would be relevant to O'Donnell's biography, not Aikens, as it was her initial comment -- her actions -- that generated the press coverage. Also, WP:NPOV requires a balance in the article so that the article represents fairly and without bias all significant views. You have to ask yourself, is this Ripa/Aiken/O'Donnell matter part of a significant view/aspect of Clay's life? Also, BLP addresses sexual preferences by stating, The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources. So far, Aikens' sexual preferences are not relevant to the his notable activities or public life. BLP would seem to keep this matter from be used on Wikipedia to "out" Aikens. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this is in response to a current situation on the Rosie O'Donnell biography, not this entry. See my talk page and follow the bread crumbs. Also [14]. -Jmh123 17:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Book title

I didn't lose it, I deliberately deleted it. Do you feel that it is necessary? I don't see any reason to advertise her book for her, and I don't think the title adds anything relevant. -Jmh123 16:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware. The sentence just didn't read right and it looked like the title got lost. Maria202 16:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

How about the revision I just made? Will it work? -Jmh123 16:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that reads better. I changed a book to her book. Maria202 17:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The great plane debacle of 2007

Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, and we don't insert an AP wire report into an article and call it research. A part of the story was inexplicably deleted from the AP Wire story, which was taken in every other aspect from the Tulsa paper, after which that paper also deleted the same part. FOX TV national news just reported that part of the story, that is, that Aiken was asleep when the lady starting hitting him. Not nearly as interesting. Wait and see if anyone cares in a week or two, and let's at least find full sources and report accurately if we must pretend to be Wiki-news. Thanks. -Jmh123 22:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia's insatiable desire to break news cannot be denied, I have included one source not normally considered to be reliable in an effort to get the facts straight. This paragraph from the initial story: "Apparently, a former "American Idol" contestant was asleep in his seat and a woman roused him to get him to move his foot, Johnson confirmed. An argument then followed," was removed from the AP wire story, and then from the initial Tulsa World report, without explanation. Eye witnesses, and Aiken himself, have said that he was asleep at the time that the woman shoved him.

I know it's hard to believe, but the media has a tendency to sensationalize stories about celebrities. -Jmh123 16:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Guess it's a slow news day when Clay's size 13 feet make headlines. I added the People reference. At least they took the time to talk to the FBI agent that investigated the incident. This is the paragraph that was removed from the original Tulsa World article:

"Apparently, a former "American Idol" contestant was asleep in his seat and a woman roused him to get him to move his foot, Johnson confirmed. An argument then followed."

So much for journalistic integrity. Maria202 17:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the less reliable sources since we now have a statement confirming that he was asleep, etc. Shame some Wikipedia editors are so hot to trot to break news. Anyway, I think we handled it well. He is so right. Why one stupid, incorrectly reported story can make international news and kids in many countries are suffering without attention I will never understand. How many of these media reports will be corrected, do you think? I'm going to remove the current events tag. -Jmh123 21:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Are You Serious?

If you look up "whitewash" in the dictionary, there is a picture of this article next to the entry!<--SARCASM (don't waste your time finding a dictionary).

This article is incredibly POV. Omitting any negative references/press on Clay Aiken with the "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" or the "Rosie said it, so it should go on her page" justification is ridiculous. Questions of Clay Aiken's sexuality, because they have generated news, are salient and germain aspects of any truly NPOV biography of him. Regardless about what Clay himself or the "claymates" claim, when a Google search of of "'Clay Aiken' gay" turns up hundreds of pages from reputable sources with stories questioning his sexuality and Diane Sawyer/People Magazine ask him directly about the issue, IT IS RELEVENT! Someone above stated that "since according to Clay he is not gay and this borders on libel, and needs to be handled delicately". This is a load of hogwash. It is in no way libelous for Wikipedia to report that "person X said that Aiken is gay", even if person X is guilty of libel. Also, when has Clay Aiken said recently that he is not gay? He dodged the question in People and with Diane Sawyer, when he could have said "I am not gay". But I digress.

Whether he is gay or not, the fact that so many people are talking about it indicates that the subject itself should be included in a current, thorough, and accurate biography. An encyclopedia article shouldn't pretend that a controversy doesn't exist simply because no reputable source can prove that he is gay. Holding articles to that standard would be ridiculous. In fact, many articles that soley discuss controveries themselves would not even exist if they had to fulfill the "prove it" burden. Readers should be able to read a fair and accurate representation of Clay Aiken AND his influence on our culture and the light in which he is held by the press and the general population (not only his fans). Whether you like it or not, Aiken's sexuality IS an issue, and it is important to discuss the ISSUE ITSELF in an NPOV Article. In fact, a LexisNexis search indicates that his sexuality is discussed in the media MORE than his music). -Diego Gravez 04:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversies and media focus

Per the above query, I reviewed the article and found that a substantial amount of information had been deleted from the article, apparently in May. Some of that info had been added after lengthy discussion between many editors. I don't see any discussion of its removal. If anyone has problems with this sourced, neutral information please say so. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It will take me a while to find the history on this but there was lots of discussion relating to BLP. The Controversy section was tagged as trivia by Jreferee according to the BLP Trivia Section and we were told to work it into the body of the article, which we did.[15] I'm surprised that you didn't open a discussion about the current version and instead did what you said others had done, make changes without discussion.

ETA: During the Request for Deletion of the Paulus article and preceding discussion anything considered violations of BLP was removed by Ken Arromdee[16] and others. [17]

Jimmy Wales has said it is sometimes better to have nothing at all than to include speculation, and has emphasized the need for sensitivity:

Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.

Based on the request for deletion you requested and the discussion that took place on those pages I'm reverting the article back to where it was before you made the current changes. Maria202 14:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Everything that I added back was well-sourced and neutrally presented. I didn't restore the JP material Is there a specific problem with any of it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something it was already incorporated into the body of the text. Maria202 15:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right, some of it was. What about the rest? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

All the documentation can be found by reading the links I provided in my eariler comment. Maria202 16:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look like any of that discussion took place here. This is the text that hasbn't been moved to other sections: <!Please do not change anything about the following paragraph as the specific wording and links have been agreed upon. See "talk" for discussion. Thank you->

• In an interview with Rolling Stone in July 2003 Aiken stated that he is not gay. When he appeared as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live on February 7, 2004, Aiken lampooned speculation about his sexuality in the opening monologue, which featured him as a member of a gay men's chorus.

In September 2006 Aiken sat down for televised interviews with Diane Sawyer of Good Morning America, Lara Spencer of The Insider, Larry King (Larry King Live), and spoke to People magazine (October 2, 2006 issue) to discuss rumors about his sexuality.

When Sawyer asked if he was ready to come out he laughed and said that would not make any sense as it was preposterous for him to do that. He also told Sawyer that he was done answering questions, it was no one's business and those were the type of questions he thought were rude. When Sawyer asked him about the "prurient stuff" on the Internet purporting to be from him, he said, "Even though stuff I read about me in the magazines isn't true... it still makes me lose sleep." He said he hurts, not just for his mother, and he doesn't know why people are offensive.

In his televised sit-down with Lara Spencer she asked if he was ready to set the record straight about his sexuality. Aiken replied, "I'm just not commenting anymore. There's no point, I've answered before (Rolling Stone, 2003). I feel like a kid who is in trouble in school and is called in, did you do this? Did you cheat on that test? And of course, no, but it doesn't matter what you say." Spencer asked him if reading the speculation in the tabloids upset him. Aiken replied, "At first it's a little bit painful, a little bit harmful, you know, to see that and think, 'Oh God there actually are gonna be people who see that and believe this,' which is preposterous." He went on to say it was painful for his mother to see such outrageous and fabricated stories.

Aiken told People, "It doesn't matter what I say. People are going to believe what they want. I don't like having crap spread about me to everybody. But I've kind of unfortunately come to know that it's part of what I'm doing."

Discussing the tabloid stories with Larry King, Aiken said the people who know him know the stories are not true.

This is the same text that you agreed to previously, I believe. What part of it violates BLP? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You have acceded to the complaints of an editor who expresses his point with capital letters, pointed sarcasm, and emotionality, without any discussion beforehand. I think we've been down this road before, haven't we? In catering to this individual, you have restored material without taking note of content changes that have occurred in the interim, resulting in the repetition of some material and a less well-written article. If you look at the entry's history, you will see that the material in question was deleted by Ken Arromdee and FNMF in this series of edits [18], [19], [20], [21], and [22] subsequent to comments made here [23]. You will also note that I commented on these deletions on both these editor's user pages at the time, here [24] and [25]. While I have compromised many times, and suggested here [26] the possibility of restoring some of the material deleted by Arromdee and FNMF after Maria and I did a complete rewrite of this entry earlier this year, I am not inclined to give into emotional blackmail by other editors and my root position on this matter has always been clear. Rumor and gossip do not belong in an encyclopedia. -Jmh123 17:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know which editors you're talking about and I don't know of any "emotional blackmail". Most of the material above refers to comments made by Aiken himself, and is not rumor or gossip. It's not a rumor that Aiken made jokes abot himself on SNL. Again I ask, what part of this material violates BLP? It is all sourced and neutral. Parts of it were agreed upon following lengthy negotiations among many editors. For a single editor to delete it because he deons't like it is not sufficient. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The editor I'm talking about is the editor you responded to today with your edits. What single editor are you talking about? If you weren't happy with the edits made by Ken Arromdee and FNMF at the time they made them, why didn't you say so then? They didn't delete the material because they "didn't like it"; they made those edits because they thought the material didn't belong in Wikipedia and was a violation of BLP, as stated in the edit comments in the diffs I have linked. Their edits have stood uncontested since May, and the stance was reaffirmed by JReferee as well when a notice was placed on the BLP noticeboard by a different editor seeking to restore the O'Donnell material.[27]-Jmh123 18:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Jmh123's question about why I didn't respond earlier: I have over 8,000 pages on my watchlist. I only becme involved in this article is that I was recruited over two years ago to help mediate between a number of editors who were fighting over material on Aiken's sexuality. I spent several weeks negotiating with editors over this topic, after which everyone involved (including Jmh123) agreed on the core text. Anyway, that was then and this is now. What current objection is there to this material? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at the the section copied above by Will Beback. It is not itself rumor or gossip -- it is Aiken's responses to the rumor and gossip. There are rumors and there is gossip; to mention that they exist, and essentially giving Aiken space to respond (via quotes from interviews) is certainly not a BLP violation. The paragraphs above are referenced, sourced, and not only neutral but quite fair-minded.

The link you have provided to the BLP noticeboard deals with the Ripa/O'Donnell flap -- how is it applicable to the paragraphs above? -- ArglebargleIV 19:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Aiken has said that this type speculation is an invasion of his privacy and he's done addressing it. The new BLP states "An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." Without the gossip and tabloid speculation none of this would have occured. To include any of this violates his privacy and the BLP. Maria202 19:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What Aiken says on network TV is not private. If he says things in public, and if other people report on that, then that isn't private. What private material is included here? What are we saying that Aiken or other public figures haven't said? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It puts Wikipedia in the position of being "the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." Maria202 19:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Will, regarding the "lengthy negotiations," those were conducted a long time ago, before the change in policy regarding BLP. I'm sure you know full well that JP wouldn't be given the time of today in today's Wikipedia.

Argyle, The BLP notice is applicable because it called attention to omissions in the article, and any Wikipedia editor who read the board could at that time have commented, yay or nay, on this or any related material. JReferee also made the following comment on this talk page at that time: "Also, BLP addresses sexual preferences by stating, '[sexual orientation is relevant if] the subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.' So far, Aikens' sexual preferences are not relevant to his notable activities or public life." Nobody at that time challenged that argument.

Argyle, you read the revised article and congratulated us on a job well done. The editors who made the deletions could have been engaged at the time by either one of you, but they were not.

As Maria says, Aiken's public stance has been that his private life is his business, and he has maintained that stance regarding the women in his life just as he has regarding the gay rumors. Will, he had no choice but to address the subject on network TV. It's not like he brought it up. Diego Gravez, he didn't say "I'm not gay" because, he said, "I'm just not commenting anymore. There's no point, I've answered before." "It doesn't matter what I say. People are going to believe what they want." I can see the point of including these responses, but Maria objects strongly and I respect her opinion on this matter.

I might be reacting differently if this discussion weren't happening today just because of the comments on this page by another editor, and what appeared to me to be an ill-considered edit in response. We will always have some individual come along and complain, just as there is always someone to insist that the gerbil rumor belongs in a certain movie star's bio. We ought to tell them no thanks. This is an encyclopedia. -Jmh123 20:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Aikens' comments are not rumors. Aiken participating in a mock gay mens chorus is not a rumor. Interviews with Diane Sawyer, Lara Spencer, Larry King, and the Rolling Stone are not rumors. Those are reports on the subject by notable journalists. On the other hand, how many journalists have asked Aiken about his hair, which we apparently believe is an encyclopedic topic? Regarding WP:BLP, it prohibits poorly sourced material. This is well-sourced material. There is no policy reason to delete it outright. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the quotation from WP:BLP, it was taken out of context. Please see WP:BLP#Categories for the proper context. No one is suggesting adding a sexual orientation category to this article so that sentence of the policy is irrelevant to this discussion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Diane Sawyer asks about his hair almost every time he's on GMA. People devotes a permanent photo gallery to his changing looks. You are not addressing the interpretations of BLP offered by Maria, JReferee, FNMF, and Ken Arromdee, three of whom are long gone because the material was deleted last May. (This was written before your edit Will but there was an edit conflict--which BLP comment are you referring to, please?) Other than his role as pop culture whipping boy, stand-in for all the out gay men that it is no longer PC to mock publicly (a role about what nothing profound or intelligent has been asked or written) all we have is a bunch of "journalists" asking, "Are you gay yet? Are you going to come out yet? Cause you act like a pansy and the tabloids say you are." Then he gets to figure out how to answer this time. If anyone ever dealt with this whole issue with some depth and intelligence, if there was ever an act of genuine journalism anywhere that addressed it, we wouldn't keep having this freaking argument, because we'd have a decent source to turn to. (There was a Canadian article that came close, but it quoted a tabloid at length and assumed that what the tabloid said was entirely true--so it was about how he is the gay whipping boy that folks ought to quit picking on. And if you're going to keep harping on SNL, as I argued to no avail back in 2005, he did not "participate in a mock gay men's chorus".) -Jmh123 22:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Are Sawyer and People adequate sources for discussing his hair but inadequate sources for discussing other details of his life? Is a direct quotation from Aiken himself a "poor source"? The BLP quotation by JReferee that you re-quoted is this:

• "Also, BLP addresses sexual preferences by stating, '[sexual orientation is relevant if] the subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.' So far, Aikens' sexual preferences are not relevant to his notable activities or public life."

That's out-of-context and refers only to the use of categories (which no one is proposing). It's absurd to assert that because no one objected to the misquotation when it was written that everyone must abide by it now. It was wrong then and it's wrong now. I don't see what part of BLP this material violates. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I cannot think of a single legitimate reason to exclude this relevent material from a Wikipedia article. Articles should be balanced, representative, and present a neutral point of view. Despite being "an editor who expresses his point with capital letters, pointed sarcasm, and emotionality"(how uncouth!), I don't have a horse in this race, as it seems so many of the regular editors here do (Maria202, Jmh123, etc.). I came to this article actually seeking information (I am not a Clay Aiken expert), and unfortunately what I found was a slick, corporate whitewash of a biography that I probably could have read on his fan site. How many Wikipedia articles don't have a contoversy section? (Jmh123: notice the italics for emphasis, rather than capitals). Whether it is fair or not, some degree of controversy surrounds Aiken's sexuality. This contoversy has been documented in reputable sources and quotes from Aiken himself; quite different from the various "gerbil rumors" floating around regarding other celebrities.

I agree with the comment above; why are tabloid and "entertainment media" comments about Aiken's hairstyle "worthy" of an encylopedia, but well-sourced articles about his sexuality are only fit for a tabloid? This seems to be a double standard heavily biased toward "protecting" Clay Aiken's wholesome image written by someone who probably has too much of an emotional investment in the subject matter to reliably contribute to an NPOV article. Jmh, the fact that Maria objects so strongly is probably a good indication that she should not be the deciding factor on whether or not this article contains well-sourced information about a relevent topic. Please ask yourselves why you really object to including this information and add it into the article in a format that everyone can agree on. -Diego Gravez 21:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The article as written does not violate the BLP. As stated by Jreferee on the last BLP Noticeboard complaint[28] and the editors who originally removed the contentious material, discussion of Aiken's sexuality is inappropriate and violates the BLP. I agree. Arguments on this subject should have been made when the deletions were made with those who did the deleting. Trying to re-introduce the subject now is nothing more than an end run around the BLP. Maria202 21:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Diego, we decided that incorporating controversies within the text was more effective writing, and there are controversies that are addressed in the entry. Just where are these "well-sourced articles about his sexuality," because I haven't seen any in any reliable source. And please do not speculate about your fellow editors' motivations--you are crossing a line. -Jmh123 22:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Maria202, there is nothing in the BLP Noticeboard about this material. The closest are these lines:

• Isn't a discussion on the "Talk" page of the article a good first step when there is a disagreement among editors? Instead you go straight for ANI? And this notice board too?
• In particular to your request, it is inappropriate per BLP to use Rosie's statement to support a position on Clay's sexuality, whether directly in the article or through the title of a reference. This whole issue is widely discussed on the article talk page and is attended to by many editors.

So we're discussing it here, as we have in the past. In fact, the only major discussion on this topic on this page was two years ago. Arguing that editors cannot object because they missed an edit comment of "I'm deleting it myself. BLP and gossip"[29] is absurd. Let's get back to the present. What material posted above violates Wikipedia policy? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) As for your hair/sexual orientation comparison, when there are issues of controversy, the expectations for reliable sourcing should be more rigorous. I don't think that is difficult to understand at all. As the article has been completely rewritten since the deletions, and months have passed, I object to restoring word-for-word material that was at one time deemed acceptable especially when BLP policy has changed since the original debate years ago. While it may be absurd to expect you to miss an edit that was made at a time when an AfD quite relevant to this article was ongoing, it is also a bit absurd to expect Maria and myself to have read your mind and realized that you might object to an edit, if only you had known about it. One assumes that those who have concerns are watching via watch lists. We've been operating under what I believe is a reasonable assumption that the article as it stands now was acceptable, given that the edits you are objecting to were made in good faith by editors of some standing in the community, and we have been more than a little blind-sided today. I think the editors who deleted the material should be given an opportunity to defend those deletions if they wish to do so. Demanding that we speak for them, and right now this minute, is a bit unfair. Speaking for myself, I've been dragged back here at a time when I'm involved in other things and I have lost valuable time today on another project, and I've definitely been grumpy about that. I'm rusty on Wikipedia procedures and guidelines, and my mental focus is elsewhere. I really, really hate edit conflicts. I'm not happy, and it's showing in my comments, and I apologize for that. I think that if we're going to make a change from the article as it now stands on this issue, we need to start anew. I support the principle that it's more important to get it right than to get it into print "now", as articulated by ArbCom during the badlydrawnjeff controversy. (And yes, I know it's not exactly the same situation, but the principle still applies. It's better to exclude controversial material until there is a genuine consensus to include it.) Let's take some time, slow it down, and get some other opinions. -Jmh123 23:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The point isn't what happened two years ago or four months ago. We can overlook that it was in the article for 23 months, and that it's been out of the article for four months. Today, a set of sourced, neutral information was added and then deleted. I didn't drag anyone here and demand that they participate in this discussion. I have kept asking those who are in the discussion to give clear policy reasons for today's deletion of this material. I'm certainly open to condensing it or rewriting it. We don't have to settle this right now. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sourced or unsourced, any questions asked or comments made to Aiken were based on gossip, rumors and tabloid allegations. Gossip, rumors and tabloid allegations are not encyclopedic. From the BLP:

"Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?

Editors should also be careful of a feedback loop in which an unsourced and speculative contention in a Wikipedia article gets picked up, with or without attribution, in an otherwise-reliable newspaper or other media story, and that story is then cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original speculative contention."

Regardless of whether he answered or not, adding this back in is repeating gossip. How difficult is that to understand? Maria202 00:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that direct quotes by Aiken are gossip. If we wrote, "there's a rumor that Aiken denied being gay" then that would be a rumor. If we say, "Aiken has told Diane Sawyer, 'I am not gay'." then then is a direct quote. They are very different things. By analogy, Larry Craig held a press conference recently to announce, "I am not gay". It'd be silly for us to not report that just because he's made the announcement in response to rumors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, Will, Craig made that announcement in response to being arrested for soliciting gay sex in a public bathroom, not in response to rumors. Not the best analogy. -Jmh123 01:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Would we supress it if Craig had made the announcement without having been arrested? How do we know that the questions asked of Aiken were all in response to rumors? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Pleading guilty to a criminal charge of a misdemanor, being asked to resign his seats on Senate committees and calling a press conference to announce his intent to resign as Senator cannot be classified as rumor or gossip. Yes, the media like to sensationalize but using Craig as an analogy to Aiken is grasping at straws. I did not say quotes made by Aiken were gossip. I said he was/was not responding to gossip, rumors and tabloid allegations. With Aiken, there is not one shred of proof that what has been said about him is any thing other than gossip and rumor. Whether you like it or not, no matter how it's spun, and no matter whether you believe the gossip and rumors or not, Wikipedia is not in the business of repeating gossip. One more quote from the BLP "Jimmy Wales has said it is better to have no information at all than to include speculation, and has emphasized the need for sensitivity:" Aiken has said the tabloid stories are not true and that they hurt him and his family. He has also said these type questions are insulting. Why is it so difficult to accord him some sensitivity instead of insisting on perpertrating the rumors and gossip which violate the BLP? Maria202 02:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

So when a public figure makes an announcement, or answers an interviewers questions, we can't include it if a Wikipedia editor thinks that the statement is related to a rumor? I think that's a lousy standard. Also denying a rumor is just about the opposite of propogating a rumor. Or are you saying it's only a rumor that Aiken is not gay? Finally, if we're going to re-write the material, would it be too much to ask to have the discssuion about it on this page, rather than creating private versions? [30] It'd be nice if this could be a collaborative process. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Tabloid rumours or allegations about the sexuality of a pop singer are non-encyclopaedic and violate WP:BLP. The sexuality of this singer is not notable in any way. The fact that somebody is asked a question by an "entertainment reporter" or such-like is not notable information. WP:BLP demands sensitivity to the subject of the entry: there is no reason that this singer should be forced to endure an encyclopaedia entry about themselves containing such rumours and allegations. Editors who cannot grasp that such material has no place in Wikipedia should refrain from editing biographical entries. BCST2001 05:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Diane Sawyer is not an "entertainment reporter". Even if she were, the subject is an entertainer, why shouldn't he be covered by entertainment reporters? If the sexuality of the subject were not noteworthy then he wouldn't be asked, and have his response printed, so often. The subject is a public individual. He's endured being asked these questions, he's endured answering the questions, he's endured seeing his responses printed or broadcast. If he didn't want to endure it he could find a less prominient job or not answer the questions. He submits to interviews voluntarily, possibly seeks them out. Again, quoting his direct statements is not spreading rumors or gossip. It's quoting the subject. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That is precisely the kind of comment that demonstrates an inability to comprehend WP:BLP. Whatever kind of reporter you imagine Diane Sawyer to be, she was not acting as an investigative reporter presenting an interview subject with information. Rather, she was exploiting the tabloid allegations of others and giving the subject an opportunity to deny. None of that makes the information notable. It is not notable. However "prominent" this pop singer may be, his sexuality is his business until such time as, for some reason, it becomes other people's business. At present there is no reason for it to be other people's business. For an encyclopaedia to print his denials is to engage in completely unwarranted innuendo, which is in fact no different than printing the rumours and allegations in the first place. The fact is that there are people in the world, including Wikipedia editors, who enjoy spreading innuendo about the sexuality of various celebrities: that does not make such innuendo notable or warranted in any way. There are no legitimate arguments for including the kind of material you wish to include, and you should refrain from including such information until such time as you muster a strong consensus of experienced editors to do so. You have mustered no such consensus as yet, and I strongly doubt you will be able to, given the material in question. BCST2001 06:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Saying that I "enjoy spreading innuendo" is uncalled for. Regarding consensus, this material was arrived at as a consensus among many editors, including Jmh123, which remained with little change for almost two years, and which was deleted without discussion. Certainly the consensus can change, or be changed. But I still don't see any language in WP:BLP that says we shouldn't quote the subject's own statements on his personal life tht were given in widely broadcast interviews. If he was asked in several interviews about his ethnic heritage, his religion, or his health would we exclude his answers to those personal questions? If he kept denying bleaching his hair would we say that the printing the denials invades his privacy? We shouldn't speculate about it ourselves, but if he keeps talking about then it's a legitimate topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternate language

Here's some a version that we could use instead of what's posted above. It's reliably sourced and neutral.

• Aiken has been the subject of tabloid gossip and gay jokes by Conan O'Brien, Jay Leno, Kathy Griffin, and Mad TV, among others. He describes the gossip and jokes as "...like having a gnat in your nose. You just want to kill it. It becomes unfortunately a negative part of what you do, and you need to kind of live with it. But if you could get up your nose and kill it, you would do it." In September 2006 Aiken sat down for televised interviews with Diane Sawyer of Good Morning America, Lara Spencer of The Insider, Larry King (Larry King Live), and spoke to People magazine (October 2, 2006 issue) in conjunction with the promotion of his new album, A Thousand Different Ways. When Spencer asked if he was ready to set the record straight about his sexual orientation, Aiken replied, "I'm just not commenting anymore. There's no point, I've answered before." Aiken told People, "It doesn't matter what I say. People are going to believe what they want. I don't like having crap spread about me to everybody. But I've kind of unfortunately come to know that it's part of what I'm doing." Spencer asked him if reading the speculation in the tabloids upset him. Aiken replied, "At first it's a little bit painful, a little bit harmful, you know, to see that and think, 'Oh God there actually are gonna be people who see that and believe this, which is preposterous.'" Discussing the tabloid stories with Larry King, Aiken said the people who know him know the stories are not true.

We could trim some of it. The jokes and gnat quote seem minor, unsourced at the moment, and could be dropped. What other changes would make it better? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I moved a comment that objected to any mention of the material, so ast to keep this section for discussing versions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Objection to material

Notice Aiken's comment: "I don't like having crap spread about me." You are spreading crap about Aiken. There is no reason to do so, and lots of reasons not to do so. The fact is: there is no content here. It is nothing but pure innuendo. Although you earlier claimed that printing a denial of a rumour is the opposite of spreading a rumour, in fact you are completely incorrect: printing a denial is a form of innuendo and a way of perpetuating the rumour. There is no content here other than that perpetuation. If I ask you, "are you gay?" and you say "I'm heterosexual," you have done nothing but say the words "I'm heterosexual." If I now print in a tabloid "Will Beback denies he is gay," that is in some way a true statement, but it is a completely manufactured and sensationalistic story. If I then go and print the same "denial" in an encyclopaedia, then I am simply proving that I have no idea what should and should not be included in an encyclopaedia. That is the precise situation in this case. You "alternate version" is wholly unacceptable. It should in fact be immediately deleted from the talk page as per WP:BLP, which applies to all pages. BCST2001 06:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

When a famous journalist asks a question of a famous singer on a TV show seen by tens of millions of people across the world that is different from when one Wikipedia editor asks another. When more than one journalist asks essentially the same question it isn't like the one-off situation you describe. If the subject were extremely thin, and if he were often asked whether he was anorexic and always denied it, then we'd report that. This is no different. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

BLP warns "Editors should also be careful of a feedback loop in which an unsourced and speculative contention in a Wikipedia article gets picked up, with or without attribution, in an otherwise-reliable newspaper or other media story, and that story is then cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original speculative contention." This is exactly what we, as responsible editors, should not allow to happen. The gossip bloggers and tabloids start rumors. Legitimate media questions them. Wikipedia includes the legitimate media mentions thereby adding more legitimacy and the legitimate media then uses Wikipedia as a source for continuing to spread the crap started by gossip bloggers and tabloids. It's a vicious circle. I've seen many press articles on Aiken where the text has been taken directly from this article. Using the content you propose makes us no better than the gossip bloggers and tabloids. Not only is that unacceptable it is against WP:BLP. Maria202 11:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide links to these articles you're referring to? Wikipedia isn't the source of any rumor about the subject that I've been informed of. I don't think the journalist's questions were even prompted by rumors (and no evidence has been provided that they are). Instead, it seems more likely that the questions were prompted by the subject's appearance and mannerisms. If a person is as thin as a skeleton, one needn't have heard a rumor to ask if they have an eating disorder. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Will Beback, you completely missed the point of my example. Nor have you addressed any of the substantive points I have made, such as that this pop singer's sexuality is nobody's business, and he has objected to the spreading of rumour and innuendo. Furthermore, I did not say you enjoy spreading innuendo. But if you do not enjoy spreading innuendo, then please stop trying to justify spreading innuendo. That is what you are currently doing. Finally, I see absolutely no evidence in recent discussion on this talk page of any consensus to include the kind of material you are discussing. I would suggest to you that at present there is no chance of achieving such consensus. Editors should not feel any kind of pressure to compromise about WP:BLP. When material violates WP:BLP it is excluded, pure and simple. If you can find a strong consensus that this material is acceptable, then you can consider including it. Without such a consensus, the material should be excluded, and no compromise or negotiation is necessary. This is how Wikipedia is protected, and how those written about in Wikipedia are protected. That protection is just, necessary, and non-negotiable. BCST2001 13:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Are the pop singer's charities anyone's business? Is his religion anyone's business? Is his hair color anyone's business? His fear of cats? Things he says on national TV? I'm of the opinion that anything he says publicly is potentially relevant to this article. "Spreading innuendo" would be posting things like, "The subject is unmarried and lives with his bodyguard". Posting something like "When asked about his sexual orientation he's replied that 'people will believe what they want to believe'" would not be an innuendo; it would be a direct quote from the subject on the topic. It does not violate BLP. If it does, can you quote the specific part of BLP that it violates? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is how it works. Things outside of Clay's control or influence are not likely to be relevant to this article even if made by a WP:RS. They might be relevant to another topic, but not relevant to this biography. Written material by WP:RS on things in which Clay says or does is potentially relevant to this article. It does not mean goes in, it just means it potentially can be added to the article. Wikipedia:What is a good article? is a basis for deciding whether the Clay-may-be-gay material gets into the article. This keep/keep out issue has been going on way too long. Set up a section specifically to discuss the proposed Clay-may-be-gay revision and discuss the proposed Clay-may-be-gay revision in the context of whether adding it meets Wikipedia:What is a good article?. After five days, post a note at WP:AN to have an admin determine the discussion consensus and close the discussion using top and bottom templates. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Regarding the nature of the proposed material, it could as easily be termed "Clay-may-be-straight". The most relevant concept in Wikipedia:What is a good article? appears to be "(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; and (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details". However that doesn't provide a clear path for us. The topic is Clay Aiken, and this material is undoubtedly about that topic. Whether his interview statements, or his appearance, are "major aspects" is harder to judge. The "keep/keep out" discussion has been going on for only a day - I'm not sure how that is too long. Regarding your proposal for moving forward, I created a section titled #Alternate language to discuss different ways of discussing these interviews, etc. So far the only responses have been those that categorically deny that any of Aiken's public statements on the topic may be mentioned. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Will, the problem with your Alternate Text section is that you have arbitrarily made the decision it will be included thereby ignoring any objections, and jumped to discussing what version is acceptable. That's not how I read what Jreferee said. Maria202 19:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I intended. But how can we decide if something is going to be included if we don't know what the "something" is? Or, turned around, what would be acceptable to include? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, like two years later, and the same people are still here arguing about this. oO - mixvio 20:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Will Beback, your suggestion that discussing whether somebody has a fear of cats is equivalent to discussing their sexuality is just further evidence that you are unwilling to reflect on what WP:BLP is actually about. Furthermore, you fail to understand the concept of innuendo, despite efforts to clarify this for you: no sourced evidence of Aiken's sexual orientation has been provided; he has denied allegations; he has objected to the spreading of allegations—in this context, including his denials is engaging in willful innuendo, as already explained. As far as I can see, you have no support for your campaign. And I further continue to believe that your "alternate version" is currently violating WP:BLP on this talk page. If, over the next day or so, you do not receive clear support from a consensus of established editors to include this material, I will remove the material from the talk page. BCST2001 21:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There was already a consensus, borne out of a year of flamewars and fighting, to add the material in the first place. Well before you were even participating in this article. Who are you to take it upon yourself to remove it now? Perhaps you should go through the 'extensive' history on this particular discussion before tasking yourself as guardian. - mixvio 21:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well there is certainly no consensus now. BCST2001 21:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC: Clay's statements on sexual orientation

Clay Aiken has been asked several times by major journalists, both on TV and in print, to discuss his sexual orientation. May we quote or refer to his answers? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

Points favoring exlusion: The following points are relevant:

• There is no sourced information about the sexuality of this person.
• The sexuality of this person is not important or notable for any reason. This person is neither a politician running for office nor notable in any way for their sexuality.
• This person has objected to the spreading of rumours and allegations about his sexuality, and has stated that the spreading of these rumours and allegations is hurtful.
• Discussion of the sexuality of this person is insensitive and unnecessary, given the above 3 points. In such a situation, WP:BLP is crystal clear: "leave it out."
• This person has, when asked direct questions about their sexuality, denied the rumours and allegations, and indicated their distress about the spreading of such rumours and allegations. In such circumstances, including this person's public "denials" amounts to perpetuating the rumours via innuendo. That is, the fact he has denied this or that allegation on this or that talk show, if it then becomes a part of that person's encyclopaedia entry, will unnecessarily mean that the person will be forced to endure the allegation so long as the material remains in the entry. (And don't forget point number one above: there is no sourced information about the sexuality of this person.)
• In summary, there are no reasons to include this material, and many reasons to exclude it. The material violates WP:BLP, and there is no consensus to include this material. The material should be excluded.

BCST2001 22:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the points made by BCST2001,

• The questions asked of this person were asked based on tabloid stories and gossip. (Possibly because the tabloid stories and gossip were heavily covered in the Wikipedia article about him.) A media fishing expedition.
• This person has made it clear that his private life is no ones business and he will no longer answer questions on the subject.
• All references to unsourced gossip, rumors and tabloid stories have been removed because of BLP violations. Adding them back in is tantamount to giving the media a new license to go fishing again.

The material should remain excluded. Maria202 22:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Points favoring inclusion:

• The subject's personal life is of intense interest to fans and the general public.[31]
• The subject is a public figure who has sought the spotlight and who freely discuses many aspects of his personal life.
• The subject has willingly submitted to interviews in which he has been asked, sometimes at length,[32] about his orientation and his manner of discussing it. In none of the interviews has he declined to comment.
• Questions about his orientation have been asked by a number of legitimate journalists. These are not tabloid papers that we are using for sources. The frequency of the questions is an indication of the noteworthiness of the topic.
• Due to the widespread discussion of the topic, both in the media and in blogs and forums, the article should address it in some manner.
• Quoting a subject about himself is not "spreading innuendo".
• This material is reliable and neutral. No part of WP:BLP prohibits quoting a subject about himself.
• Some of the arguments presented on this page imply that the subject's sexual orientation would not be a legitimate topic even if the subject were to hold a press conference and announce his preferences.
• Editors opposing the material have declined to negotiate over the material, categorically refusing to allow it in any form.
• The material had been in the article for years before being removed without discusion.
• In summary, the material complies wih WP:BLP, is noteworthy, and illustrates a major part of the subject's public personna. The material should be included in some form. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreeing with the above and adding that there was already a well-established group consensus to leave the material in the article for over two years. - mixvio 23:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments from previously uninvolved editors